Dr Peter Attia’s Critique Against the Netflix Twin Diet Study | C. Gardner | The Proof Clips EP
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 тра 2024
- When it comes to comparing vegan and omnivorous diets, there's more to the story than just looking at isolated nutrients. In this clip, the way we study dietary patterns in nutrition research is put under the microscope.
Christopher Gardner explores the limitations of outdated research methods that focus on single variables, arguing that they don't paint a complete picture of how people really eat. They dive into the importance of studying overall dietary patterns, taking into account factors like adherence to the diet and differences in nutrient intake between whole food plant-based and omnivorous diets.
From critiquing study designs to discussing the challenges of comparing different ways of eating, this conversation sheds light on the complexities of nutrition research.
Stream the full episode on UA-cam: • Vegan vs. Omnivore: Un...
Or listen on your favourite podcasting platform: theproof.com/what-twins-can-t...
Want to support the show?
The best way to support the show is to use the products and services offered by our sponsors. To check them out, and enjoy great savings, visit theproof.com/friends/.
• The Proof with Simon Hill - theproof.com/podcast/
• Book: The Proof is in the Plants - theproof.com/book/
• Apple Podcast - podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
• Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/7bAIJCV...
• Instagram - / theproof
• Twitter - / theproof
• Facebook - / theproofwithsimonhill
• Plant-Based Ferments Guide - theproof.com/ferments/
• Two-week meal plan - theproof.com/mealplan/
• Plant Performance - theproof.com/plant-performance/
• Use the products and services offered by our sponsors. To check them out, and enjoy great savings, visit theproof.com/friends.
A simple answer to address Dr. Attia’s critique is that eating less calories and less saturated fat are outputs of this research study, not input variables and thus don’t need to be controlled.
Excellent.
How is eating an output?
@@adriansrfr for example if he did put more salt, sugar or fat in the food, people will just eat more.
Good point. But: If that's the case, the study's design doesn't allow for inference on the question of wether a healthy vegan diet is healthier than a healthy omnivorous diet. Which is what Attia is critiquing.
I listen to a ton of Attia's content, but he misses the point of this. The variable is the dietary pattern. People on a vegan diet tend to eat less protein and saturated fats, and more fiber, and vice versa for omnivores. The calorie difference was an interesting finding, not totally expected. Someone else can do a different study where they hold the macros constant (Kevin Hall?). To react like Attia did is ridiculous. I love his stuff on exercise, and other things, though.
if he's so off on diet maybe his stuff on exercise is likewise mistaken. he's an influencer not a scientist and is saying a lot of things based on finacial interest not facts
I find him annoying. I tried to like him, but he just feels phony and calculated.
Dr Gardner's studies, at least in the twin study, was not meant to be indifferent that he and his team were studying humans, not rats.
And the humans are free… so they can do something different and not be vegan?
If they found a twin that one was already vegetarian at least and was interested in veganism it would be so diffrent hahaha
What I retained from this discussion is that even the greatest and most brilliant can disagree sometimes. I like Simon's effort to understand Peter's point of view, and his honesty on pointing out that Dr Layne Norton had the same critique on the twin diet study
Yes, both their criticisms were similarly short sighted.
Fantastic video.
Can you get peter and mr G on your podcast and have a discussion..
That would be a must watch 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉😮😮😅😅
Dr G is open to it. Open invite to Peter - perhaps if enough people request it
Would love the discussion!
@@TheProofWithSimonHill you would do a great job at moderating the dialogue - look forward to it
What a great way for Attia to divert from what is important ... I havent seen the Attia podcast however I hope with his interest in longevity, he acknowledges the significance of the telomere growth in an eight week study regardless of the 200cal
Calorie is King and composition is Queen
Should be titled "doctor and influencer who swears by high sodium deer jerky fails to understand grandma's advice to eat more veggies is healthy and consistent with the totality of scientific evidence."
to be fair he's a huge investor in the deer jerky business. like many things he says they are often just money talking from what i can tell
yeah I don't understand why people take him seriously. He's literally an ex keto guy who's now on statins but fails to acknowledge the fact that he did it to himself with his shit diet he was promoting for years, and he's a longevity expert or whatever. Reminds me of Jordan Peterson and his rules on how to get your shit together only for him to get addicted to benzos again.
@@pegatrisedmice
I think he's attributed that to familial hypercholesterolemia.
Or did his father and grandfather also go keto for 3 years and permanently throw their lipids out of whack?
@@song2533 i don't know about his family history, but even if he has hypercholesterolemia, there's no reason to eat buckets of sour cream every day and be on a high fat diet for 3 years.
My grandma was dumb, obese and diabetic! I wouldn't listen to her dietary advice!! What scientific evidence, Bro?
There will never be a study that conforms with the carnivorous community desires unless it proves eating meat is healthy. Currently there are no studies and all of these poor diet chopices are for weight loss, not health and longevity
I have to agree with Chris Gardner. I'm not a fan of the documentary (study aside) - as I thought it was a major bait and switch in which data weren't discussed for 3/4 of the episodes as a starter - BUT... Chris is completely right you can't isolate a single variable in a true dietary trial easily, nor would you want to necessarily. Here's a question: would Chris Gardner be willing to cooperate on an RCT for WFPB vs Carnivore for IBD? I know Shawn Baker wants to do this with him and he could design the WFPB to steel man that protocol... he says he can acquire the funding... thoughts?
I’ll chat to Chris about this and revert
@@TheProofWithSimonHill Great. I think it would be a powerful study! Need to go beyond looking under the proverbial streetlamp of SCD and low FODMAP. And I think the pairing of Chris designing the WFPB diet and Shawn the Carnivore diet would promote reception of the final data, whatever they show.
What we would really like to see is not people reacting to internet posts but actual debate in person between the two. Then we would see two smart people ask and answer tough questions.
That’s a work in progress. Did you see my convo with Dave Feldman and William Cromwell?
Soon I’m hosting Dr Gardner and Nina Teicholz
@@TheProofWithSimonHill I have not. I'll look for it!
Dr Gardner has said those on the vegan diet simply ate less because they were either satiated more, or didn't like what they were eating. Was that a statement or a quess?
Is there a third alternative ?
@@classicgameplay10 Yes, both.
@@Joseph1NJ it was both.
@@classicgameplay10 Did he say that?
@@Joseph1NJ he said exactly what you typed in your first post.
Love you both, two great men
Well, not all omnivore and vegan diets are structured the same. Personally, I eat an omnivore diet where at least 80% of my calories come from unprocessed or minimally processed foods, with no more than 10% of total calories coming from animal protein, and at least 50g or more per day from fiber. 60 to 70% of calories from carbohydrates, 15 to 25% from fat, and 10 to 20% from protein. No diet is without some form of restriction, I think for me I try to leave room for the occasional treat food (e.g., pizza, pie, ice cream, etc.), as long as those treat foods make up no more than 20% of daily calories.
Diet is certainly an important component, but there’s also exercise. Was there any analysis of the amount and type of exercise performed by the participants whether vegan or omnivore?
is the full video up yet
Yep!
@@TheProofWithSimonHill where? isn't this new? I've already watched the video with Christopher Gardner talking about the twin study in full. is this just a random clip of that segment
Apparently this guest is always right ....
Confirming the validity of this study would hurt his jerky sticks sales. Let's just dismiss nutritional research and focus only on exercise. 🤷🏻♂️
As long as the authors acknowledge those obvious short comings of the study design in their paper, all good by me. It's very difficult and expensive to control all the variables in human nutri trials, hence why there's so few high quality human nutri studies published. The twin study was interesting, but nothing more for me due to the shortcomings of the design, but was in a sense a "real world" trial. It does not however convince me a well designed omni diet is inferior to a vegan diet.
Not controlling for calories was not a shortcoming. Controlling the calories would have made the study LESS useful for answering the motiving / instigating questions.
"how will free living people do if they eat a healthy vegan diet versus a healthy omnivorous diet".
controlling calories would have defeated the study's ability to find the answers to this question.
Does the paper conclude that a vegan diet is superior to a omni diet?
Or do they also mention the inferior outcomes of the vegan diet?
PS: I am not talking about the Netflix show. Not a fan.
@@ThingsYoudontwanttohear It is an open access study. UA-cam does not like external links, I would post the link otherwise. Just Google this and you will find it:
"Cardiometabolic Effects of Omnivorous vs Vegan Diets in Identical Twins"
Does saturated fat in animal and vegitables have the same impact on body when you fo nor consider veggies have phytochemicals and fibers? I always wonder..
Saturated fat is not he enemy here , saturated fat + high carb diet is another story.
@@Integroabysal I do not mean enermy at all...
Rubish saturated fat from vegetables ie coconut oil...or butter is the same
..saturated fat is bad ....don't be a clown @@Integroabysal
there are differences but generally they have the same deleterious impact on the body
@@IntegroabysalIs a leafy green, a carrot, a whole grain high carb? Isn’t the cooked flesh of a dead animal a source of transformed saturated fats which may have a different impact than the saturated fat in a raw piece of coconut ?
Nutrition studies done by scientists/researches who are former athletes or non athletes do differ in data prediction 😊
Vegan versus Omnivore has LESS animal products? Are you kidding?
You mean NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS - at all!
He is simply taking into account the possibility and the reality that not everyone adheres perfectly.
When will those researchers actually acknowledge that oil is an ultra-processed product and not a food per se ? The body organs do not need oil to glide well like a metallic machine would need.
Being of any lv of processed doesnt make anything less food. Ultra is not an exact term.
@@classicgameplay10 Extracting and concentrating the fat of an aliment is not food prep, it is chemical science.
I mostly agree. I’d say that plant oils are not health foods; the nutritional value is not worth the calories. Whether a food is processed or not is an unreliable marker for health. E.g. vinegar and tempeh are processed foods, but both are healthy.
Would freshly squeezed orange juice be classified as an ultra processed food (or product) by whatever definition you're using?
Just like extra virgin olive oil, it's basically pressed fruit, albeit that a centrifuge is used to extract the oil in olives.
@@aurelienb9109 what you say makes no sense whatsoever.
Why wouldn’t the study at the least match calories? WTf?
That would be less generalisable
The interesting part of this study for me was precisely that the vegans **spontaneously** took in less energy. I see that as hugely important at a time when being of 'normal weight' is actually an abnormality.
Peter will twist reason to try and moralize the exploitation of animals, without actual scientific justification. He’s selling really expensive jerky. Thats a conflict of interest.
And Gardner has no conflicts of interest?
“The film was partially funded by tech entrepreneur Kyle Vogt, who is vegan and an executive director of the Netflix series, and the lead Stanford researcher, Christopher Gardner, has received funding from Beyond Meat, a plant-based meat company.”
@@michaelbuday no, as they provided and made all the data readily available.
@@jesusmiguel1560 so you’re saying you have proof that Peter Attia has provided no data to back any of his claims? And if he has, then there’s no conflict of interest as you see it?
Further, how does one define in scientific terms “moral justification?” Does the “exploitation of animals” include killing any animal for the purpose of human consumption? Or is that definition limited to certain types of “inhumane” killing of animals?
@@michaelbuday what is your old ass rambling about? I was talking about your previous conflict of interest comment. There is no conflict, as the funders of the study made the data readily available.
@@michaelbuday what are you rambling about, old man?
I've never trusted Peter Attia. Besides the fact that he is not a whole picture thinker, he leans more bro science, wanna be celeb rather than an authority voice on health and wellness. There is a real ick factor he puts out.
and u trust G ? hmm
@tonyzhuhai4132 Considering of scientific background, of course.
@@wastingtimeya U mean P A dont have the necessary background ?
@@tonyzhuhai4132 In comparison to Gardner, no.
@@tonyzhuhai4132PA is an influencer
Christopher Gardner is obviously an intelligent man but looks a lot older than his age of 64. I was really surprise when I verified his age.
Gardner’s experiment design approach is reasonable, but there’s also merit to designs that match calories or saturated fats etc. to isolate what matters and then let people reading the study decide how they want to incorporate those findings in their eating patterns.
Sure! That’s what Kevin Hall does. But the majority of people aren’t counting grams of saturated fat - they just eat more or less of certain foods
not really. such studies are impossible in the real world for any duration. so if anything they just mislead by encouraging ideas that are simply false and possibly dangerous.
Attia has said previously he doesn’t believe in nutrition science.
Yes which is a very odd claim given his strong stance on exercise science and vo2 max studies
Any dietary study trying to illustrate the merits of removing entire food groups but doesn’t control for calories says literally nothing about the food group it is aiming to villainize.
And trying to say that controlling for calories is too difficult is complete BS. He knows very well that if calories were controlled for the study would not have supported in his plant-based bias.
And it wouldn’t be generalisable. One of the benefits of a pb diet is people tend to eat less calories without counting calories. You’re saying you want to remove a benefit of the diet to level the playing field? Seems odd to me
Its a pity that Dr. Gardner doesn't addres the underlying critique of Dr. Attia: That by treating actually consumed calories and unsaturated fat as outcome variables rather than input variables, this study doesn't allow for inference on the question of whether a healthy vegan diet is healthier than a healthy omnivorous diet. Only on the question of how a vegan diet influences caloric intake and intake of satured fat compared to an omnivorous diet, which is the less interesting question in my opinion.
I have no doubt that 90% of the general population of Western countries would benefit immensely from going vegan. If that's what Dr. Gardner wanted to demonstrate, he did so well. But the claim that a vegan diet is inherently better than a diet containing a degree of animal products cannot be supported by his study.
You could control it … but it wouldn’t represent what usually happens in real life when people eat an omnivorous diet or vegan diet. Keep in mind both diets were healthy in that there was a focus on whole foods.
@@TheProofWithSimonHill I 100% agree with that. It's just that people like Dr. Attia are more interested in what the optimal diet is for people that are very particular about their nutrition and can rule out a higher caloric intake by consuming animal products for themselves. Dr. Gardners study doesn't offer a lot of insights for these people. I think the communication of the study's results, not even necessarily by Dr. Gardner, but by the Netflix documentary and the media is the problem here. But I agree with you that Dr. Attias critique was unnecessarily harsh, and I share your thoughts on him applying a double standard to vegan diets compared to omnivore diets, in that a healthy omnivore diet is probably just as complicated to achieve as a healthy vegan diet, just in different regards.
Well, after hearing this, Dr. Attia seems to have a point. If "Peters view of isolating a single variable" in science is "so last century", then you should not be making statements about said variable.
That’s not accurate - a dietary pattern can modulate an outcome. It’s more generalisable than being reductionist and trying to isolate particular nutrients. It’s a real world comparison
@@TheProofWithSimonHill On the contrary - it is accurate rather than generalist - if you want to make a statement about veganism versus other forms of dietary patterns. Researching a pattern in an exploratory way is fine, if you do not want (or can) control confounding variables. But then your results do not have a lot of explanatory power in regards to the question you were researching. Less consumed Kcal lead to body fat reductions, which lead to lower LDL. If you're stating "Veganism leads to lower LDL" without controlling for total Kcal, then your statement is scientifically dubious.
@@TheProofWithSimonHill I do appreciate you replying here, though. Do you happen to have a link to the study in print?
When a meat addict criticizes the work of an oil addict.
He “ didn’t want to be a coauthor on the paper even though it’s my data “ because it didn’t produce the results he wanted ! This is what’s wrong w so called research !
Who didn’t want to be a co author?
@@TheProofWithSimonHillthe guy you was interviewing 😂. You forgot?
Attia is becoming like Huberman in that they both side with their financial interests over science.
Carnivore ftw, 5+ years and I am still at a normal bmi :)
I also don't have all of these problems anymore:
obesity, prediabetes, loose teeth, bleeding gums, sensitive teeth
cold sores, blocked sinuses, mouth breathing, left eye twitches (tetany)
heartburn, calf cramps, yellow stool, blood in stool
edema below the knees, painful feet when walking, sunburn is less
shoulder, back and neck pain after waking, lower back pain and stiffness
🤔 That's hard to believe
I eat low fat and I’m healthy so what’s your point
@@KenWang2 that's until you go to visit a doctor :)
@@Integroabysal I get regular checkups Im good. So what other excuse you got?
@@KenWang2 good for you :) it did nothing good for me so ill pass on this one.
Isn't Dr. A. sponsored by a beef jerky company? 🤔
Well correct me if I am wrong- vegan diet was more or less real vegan, but omnivore was neither keto or carnivore, so what exactly has been compared? People eating no animal food and more carbs with people eating animal foods and less carbs? Anyone knows that one should not consume carbs and animal foods together in one meal, and saturated fats don't go well with carbs. So what had Stanford learned from this study? Carbs with animals are worse than only carbs?? Well then now we need a new study with zero carbs comparison. Or at least with 20g carbs from some very specific chosen vegetables. And we'll see the results.
I agree with Peter in that the opportunity to control more variables was missed. Why weren't calories controlled? Statements were made about this study as if they were, especially in the Netflix documentary, like vegan is better for weight loss and improves "insert blood marker here." Well, you didn't control calories, so I don't believe you can make those conclusions. Seems like a great study design that was wasted for publicity.
Clearly stated that the calories delivered to the people were the same, the vegan dieters chose to eat less.
@MichaelHorstmann The participants were given the same amount of calories. However, you can’t control the actual amount of calories taken in unless you forcefeed people.
When I was eating omnivore, I took in more calories than I do on my current plant based diet. That’s normal. Just take 250 ml of cow‘s milk and compare that to 250 ml of unsweetened almond milk. Both make the stomach feel full, but you take in more than triple the amount of calories when consuming the animal version.
@@CaroAbebe you can control for calories. How would explain any of Kevin Hall's work?
@@StephenMarkTurner That isn't controlling for calories. That's just providing the same amount of calories. I'm fine if that was the main takeaway. But I am not interested, or surprised, that the diet with more fiber led people to eat less. That should be an obvious outcome at this point in nutritional science. But the authors and, especially the Netflix documentary, made claims that are far too overdrawn. You shouldn't make claims about biomarkers if calories are not matched.
Controlling calories means you answer the question "what happens when you FORCE people to do something?"
the question of the study was "what happens to real, free-living people when real people in the real world eat a healthy omnivore diet or a healthy vegan diet"
If "what happens " is that one group spontaneously eats less, THAT is what the study was supposed to find.
If you FORCE eaten calories equal you don't answer the question you're asking.
It's a pretty shitty design that actively renders the study incapable of finding one of the things it was meant to find
I think Peter Attias criticism is perfectly valid. Since the headline results of the study is Vegan diet leads to greater weight loss and lower ldl then making sure calories/saturated fats are the same is essential. You could easily repeat the study and get the opposite result by making the omnivore consume less calories and less saturated fat than the vegan group. This study was clearly designed with a particular goal in mind.
BS
You could repeat the study with the different set up, but outside of the callory aspect and weight loss, it makes no sense. We already know that higher fiber and lower saturated fat has an effect on ldl, so the point is trying a vegan diet and omnivorous diet is exactly that of showing how eating less fiber and more saturated fat impact things.
Tell me you didn’t watch the video without telling me you didn’t watch the video
Either that or your hella simple and clearly haven’t looked at the study
His response seemed deflective and didn't address Peter's points.
This is one segment of a much longer conversation. And: Dr. Gardner did address the particular point Simon mentioned to him. Dr. Attia‘s argument was futile. The design WAS about diet patterns. I wonder, what would you have Dr. Gardner do? Forcefeed the participants? It’s bad enough that humans do that to geese, but under normal conditions, we certainly don’t do it to humans.
By the way, I used to take in more calories when I was omnivore, partly because animal foods are more calorically dense, but also, I now feel satiated way sooner.
Correct. Peter’s points were easily explained - they were not strong scientific arguments
@@TheProofWithSimonHillSorry if I'm coming across as argumentative. I appreciate your podcast and all the guests. I believe you're open-minded and genuinely seeking answers for optimal health. If Chris's premise was that eating primarily whole plant foods increases satiety, leading to reduced calorie intake, an energy deficit, better blood markers, and potentially better health outcomes, I would support it. However, it wasn't presented this way. This is observational data, highlighting the weakness of nutritional science. Additionally, dismissing Peter's arguments about what actually drives the improved blood markers doesn't seem scientifically sound. Kevin Hall's NIH study, which you're aware of, shows that whole foods lead to consuming about 500 fewer calories per day compared to ultra-processed foods.
Vegans are different because they never buy 2 liter CocaCola.
gardiner is just acting like a smart arse child!
Why? Can you be specific pls
Twin study tells how one phenotype reacts to different food. It does not tell how different phenotypes reacts to different food and it doesn't tell how YOU react.
??? seriously?
Just in the documentary you had overweight Philipinos, skinny African Americans, tall pale white folks.
and you somehow think only one phenotype was studied?
@@SanjeevSharma-vk1yo Your metabolic reaction is not bound to race but to individual genetics. My wife has a nickel and lactose sensitivity. I don't. Both white central europeans. Nutrition 'science' is more voodoo and politics than anything else. All my ancestors got over 90yrs old, they ate everything "science" forbids short of processed junk.
BS
Facepalm
Peter is a sad human being.
He's so sad, that you are the one talking about him, and everyone with common sense into longevity and healthy aging follows him.
Please with your bull***
@60-Is-The-New-30
Nobody follows him. He doesn't do research.
He takes research already done and chooses to either scrutinize it, or support it IF it agrees with his bias
His critiques of the study are beyond amateur. His critique is actually a compliment in disguise
@@Justinegallows nobody follows him? Very arrogant of you to speak for the entire world?
I follow him!!!! And I'm no freaking vegan. I am ripped at 60. Move like a teenager. I have no diseases. All my biomarkers are in perfect range.
No one follows him, eh? He has over 600,000 subscribers and going up every day. His book is a best seller. Everyone and their mother interviews him, and on and on. He has a client list of Who's Who, and you, a person hidden behind a fake UA-cam Channel is going to talk nonsense. And you are????? LMFAOFFFFF!!!!
You have some serious mental issues, and delusions of grandeur is one of them.
No one follows him??? I am literally laughing at this stupidity!!!!
AND I MAKE SURE I SPREAD HIS WORDS ON MY CHANNEL!!!
Just gross
it is hard as it is to get creatine from meat much less being vegan. As you see, Dr. Gardner he looks a lot older for his age. His 64 and looks 80 years old
He does that look 80 🤣.
Gardner isn’t a plant based eater. He is an omnivore. Your listening skills need work
@@TheLilyRitehe’s a vegetarian
one thirder